Vatican II Changes


#1

Aside from the Mass, what other significant changes were instituted at Vatican II? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about “spirit of Vatican II” stuff, but real, authentic changes in doctrine or praxis.

I can’t for the life of me think of any. Help?


#2

[quote=redkim]Aside from the Mass, what other significant changes were instituted at Vatican II? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about “spirit of Vatican II” stuff, but real, authentic changes in doctrine or praxis.

I can’t for the life of me think of any. Help?
[/quote]

Probably because there were no changes in Doctrine. Other changes in practice prompted by Vatican II would be the new code of Canon Law, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Liturgical calendar, the Monastic Office, Organizational structure of the Church, Rites and celebrations of the Sacraments, to name a few.


#3

Protesants are no longer anathametized (ala Trent), which I think is a great development.


#4

The Social Kingship of Christ is now forgotten. I have heard that there VII documents have erased all mention of the Social Kingship of Christ and many Catholics don’t know what it means now:crying: :frowning: :crying: .


#5

http://www.sspx.ca/British_Columbia/Images/Traditional-Latin-Mass.jpg

Before and After

http://www.stjosephsmen.com/letters/images/clowns_small.jpg


#6

Thanks Tmore and Br. Rich!!

Catholic Eagle: What’s the Social Kingship of Christ? Would I know it by another name?

ILdoc82:

Thanks, but that’s “Spirit of Vatican II” stuff. Besides, having attended N.O. Masses my whole life (born in 1965), I’ve never seen a clown at Mass. And, also, having gone to some Tridentine Masses (which I love and hope to make my regular Sunday Mass), I’ve never seen that many servers, even at a High Mass.


#7

[quote=T. More]Protesants are no longer anathametized (ala Trent), which I think is a great development.
[/quote]

in what context do you mean my anathametized?


#8

Redkim - I think the photo is of a solemn high Mass which I have never seen either except in pictures.

What I found interesting about Catholic Eagles post is his comment that “I have heard that” - seems he has never actually read the Vatican II Documents.

I have no idea what he is talking about (but then I rarely do)

We still honor and celebrate Christ the King - just not on the day of the week he would like - so perhaps he means the change of the calendar with Vatican II.

I remember this prayer that was said to Christ the King - there are lots of old prayers in my mother’s prayer book - none are fobidden to be said by Vatican II -

“O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge Thee to be the King of the universe; all that hath been made is created for Thee. Exercise over me all Thy sovereign rights. I hereby renew the promises of my Baptism, renouncing Satan and all his works and pomps, and I engage myself to lead henceforth a truly Christian life. And in an especial manner do I undertake to bring about the triumph of the rights of God and Thy Church, so far as in me lies. Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer Thee my poor actions to obtain the acknowledgement by every heart of Thy sacred kingly power. In such wise may the kingdom of Thy peace be firmly established throughout all the earth. Amen.”

But more likely, given the anti-Vatican II nature of his previous posts, he is referring to this article written by Mr. Davies in the Remnant Magazine. Pope Pius XI promulgated an encyclical called Quas Primas on the Kingship of Christ. Mr Davies accuses the second Vatican Council of ignoring and passing over if not actually contradicting this teaching.

If we believe Mr. Davies, then the whole Vatican Council must have been focused on just the United States because he writes,

“The doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ was thus rejected by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in favor of the Constitution of the United States”

If you are interested, see the article here
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/king.htm


#9

The view of Ecclesiology was changed; prior to V2 there was emphasis on the Pope, to the extent that the church was seen in a pyramid fashon. V2 brought forward an emphasis on the role of the bishops.

In addition, the role of the non-ordained was brought forward; we moved past a “pray, pay and obey” view of the laity to an emphasis of their role in evangelizing the world.

There was much more emphasis on the Bible; more readings and a greater variety in Mass; an emphasis on scholarship, and an aen\couragement for wider reading. It was proposed that Moral Theology turn to a more scriptural base and expand its horizons.

There was a recognition that within Christianity, there is more that binds us than seperates us, and an emphasis on ecumenical dialogue. There was greater recognition that the Catholic church is not the Roman Ctholic Church; there are 20+ other rites.

Those are a few of the things that the documents addressed.


#10

[quote=deogratias]Redkim - I think the photo is of a solemn high Mass which I have never seen either except in pictures.

What I found interesting about Catholic Eagles post is his comment that “I have heard that” - seems he has never actually read the Vatican II Documents.

I have no idea what he is talking about (but then I rarely do)

We still honor and celebrate Christ the King - just not on the day of the week he would like - so perhaps he means the change of the calendar with Vatican II.

I remember this prayer that was said to Christ the King - there are lots of old prayers in my mother’s prayer book - none are fobidden to be said by Vatican II -

“O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge Thee to be the King of the universe; all that hath been made is created for Thee. Exercise over me all Thy sovereign rights. I hereby renew the promises of my Baptism, renouncing Satan and all his works and pomps, and I engage myself to lead henceforth a truly Christian life. And in an especial manner do I undertake to bring about the triumph of the rights of God and Thy Church, so far as in me lies. Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer Thee my poor actions to obtain the acknowledgement by every heart of Thy sacred kingly power. In such wise may the kingdom of Thy peace be firmly established throughout all the earth. Amen.”

But more likely, given the anti-Vatican II nature of his previous posts, he is referring to this article written by Mr. Davies in the Remnant Magazine. Pope Pius XI promulgated an encyclical called Quas Primas on the Kingship of Christ. Mr Davies accuses the second Vatican Council of ignoring and passing over if not actually contradicting this teaching.

If we believe Mr. Davies, then the whole Vatican Council must have been focused on just the United States because he writes,

“The doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ was thus rejected by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in favor of the Constitution of the United States”

If you are interested, see the article here
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/king.htm
[/quote]

Sorry if you didn’t understand me deogratias BUT THIS WAS NOT INTENDED FOR YOU. Here’s a good definition of the Social Reign of Christ from the Papal encyclical Quas Primas:

Christ must reign not only over individuals, but societies. All world governments have an obligation to profess the True Relgion,and their laws must be in conformity to Christ’s Law.

To read more about the Social Reign of Christ go to www.catholictradition.org/christ-king.htm
[urn your mute on before you access the page, the people who run the page love to have loud music on their site]
Read the encyclical Quas Primas by Pope Pius XI

Vivat Christus Rex!!!


#11

Sorry if you didn’t understand me deogratias BUT THIS WAS NOT INTENDED FOR YOU

No need to shout and what one posts on a public forum is intended for all to read, otherwise use private messaging.

I have read the encyclical as noted in my post it was your comment

I have heard that there VII documents have erased all mention of the Social Kingship of Christ and many Catholics don’t know what it means now

in which you said “I heard” implying you have not read the documents of Vatican II and yet say they “erased” all mention of Christ the King - how would a document “erase” anything said in a previous document. So again you are saying this is something done by Vatican II.

You know I have a great deal of problem with your posts because they never really answer the question asked but somehow you direct them to support your preference of anything pre-Vatican II and to discount anything post Vatican II.

If I read you correctly it seems you have the feling that the uniformity of worship, policy, devotions, etc. etc. that prevailed after the Council of Trent was somehow the norm for Church History. In reality, the history of the Church in almost all of the realms where some ‘traditionalist’ gripe about were not as neat and tidy as they would like it to be.

I don’t doubt that your heart is in the right place and I don’t doubt your love of Jesus Christ but the problems in the church today would not “go away” simply by restoring the old Mass. Poor catechesis which began befor 1960 and through today is more likely more contributory than Vatican II itself.

Many sins are committed “in the spirit of Vatican II” but just as many are committed in denying its validity.

I am starting to realize there are two kinds of Traditionlists - those who accept the Churches teachings now and in the past and are obedient to such but who exercise their right to areas where there is choice (communion on the tongue, Tridentine Mass, etc.) and then there are the “angry” ones

I can’t help but feel you are angry and that you blame Vatican II for causing the current crisis in the Church. It would seem you belive the changes decreed by the second vatican are heretical and that “true Catholics” need not assent to its teachings.

The Church has always taught that ecumenical councils are gided by the Holy Sprit and so protected frm error.

In the words of Pope Pius IX, in a letter to the Abbott of Solesmes:

“. . . the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit. . .”; “. . . it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed. . . .”

For this reason the true faithful are obligated to assent to all the decisions, decrees and teaching off Vatican II as interpreted by the continuous living authority of the Church.


#12

[quote=deogratias]No need to shout and what one posts on a public forum is intended for all to read, otherwise use private messaging.

I have read the encyclical as noted in my post it was your comment

in which you said “I heard” implying you have not read the documents of Vatican II and yet say they “erased” all mention of Christ the King - how would a document “erase” anything said in a previous document. So again you are saying this is something done by Vatican II.

You know I have a great deal of problem with your posts because they never really answer the question asked but somehow you direct them to support your preference of anything pre-Vatican II and to discount anything post Vatican II.

If I read you correctly it seems you have the feling that the uniformity of worship, policy, devotions, etc. etc. that prevailed after the Council of Trent was somehow the norm for Church History. In reality, the history of the Church in almost all of the realms where some ‘traditionalist’ gripe about were not as neat and tidy as they would like it to be.

I don’t doubt that your heart is in the right place and I don’t doubt your love of Jesus Christ but the problems in the church today would not “go away” simply by restoring the old Mass. Poor catechesis which began befor 1960 and through today is more likely more contributory than Vatican II itself.

Many sins are committed “in the spirit of Vatican II” but just as many are committed in denying its validity.

I am starting to realize there are two kinds of Traditionlists - those who accept the Churches teachings now and in the past and are obedient to such but who exercise their right to areas where there is choice (communion on the tongue, Tridentine Mass, etc.) and then there are the “angry” ones

I can’t help but feel you are angry and that you blame Vatican II for causing the current crisis in the Church. It would seem you belive the changes decreed by the second vatican are heretical and that “true Catholics” need not assent to its teachings.

The Church has always taught that ecumenical councils are gided by the Holy Sprit and so protected frm error.

In the words of Pope Pius IX, in a letter to the Abbott of Solesmes:
For this reason the true faithful are obligated to assent to all the decisions, decrees and teaching off Vatican II as interpreted by the continuous living authority of the Church.
[/quote]

I have looked through your last one hundred posts. I am the only person you attack personally. Why? Can you just cut this nonsense out. If you want people to know some of your emnities for traditional Catholics get your own website or a blog and there you could post your material. We are here to learn and discuss, not to learn about what you think about me. Cut this nonsense out.


#13

One of the most profound changes was the reinstitution of the Permanent Diaconate. Returning to the practice started by the early church and recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. There are more Catholic deacons in the USA than any other country. They are in parishes, prisons, county jails, soup kitchens, homeless shelters,hospitals, homes for the aged, and anywhere the presence of the church is needed.

Hope when folks pray for their priests, they also remember to pray for their deacons.


#14

“Other changes in practice prompted by Vatican II would be the new code of Canon Law, The Catechism of the Catholic Church…”

Canon Law was created nearly 20 years after Vatican II… that is not prompted by Vatican II.

The CCC prompted by Vat II?? I can hardly believe that… as you said, no new doctrine was formed. There is no need for another catechism… and 30 years after Vatican II is certainly not “prompted by Vat II”… maybe “prompted by ecumenism”. Is this an effort to say since it was “prompted” by a Council, that the CCC is infallible (which it is not)?


#15

LOL ILdoc82, but how about this for a “before” and “after”:

BEFORE:

AFTER:

“AFTER” seems to be missing a few people…


#16

not fair! You don’t if the bottom picture is actually a Mass or not!!

And all the NO masses I’ve attended look more like the top
picture than like bottom.


#17

Then why is he vested for Mass, plus I found this on a site saying it was a Mass.


#18

Well, maybe it was just BEFORE Mass. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here…


#19

Trad Cath - I do believe the question was:

Aside from the Mass, what other significant changes were instituted at Vatican

II

We all know the Liturgy changed after 1962. We also know that the abuses one sees at the NOM were not what Vatican II intended.

I am thankful that I may still attend Mass celebrated using the 1962 Missal but I have attended the NOM celebrated in Latin which was beautiful and I have attended “nearly” properly celebrated NOM as intended by Vatican II. And I have intended more Masses that have been tinkered with than I care to count.

I am pleased that Redemptionis Sacramentum has given us the opportunity, and the obligation, to report liturgical abuse and have faith that eventually, though not in my lifetime, that the liturgy will be reformed or restored.

But that was not the question.


#20

Well the top picture was not actually a Mass either :wink:

But it is a true representation of the consecration at a TLM Mass and one of my favorite Holy Cards from long ago.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.